I’m playing with the idea of getting a plane to do tailwheel endorsements. I’d prefer it to be tandem and 2 place because I love flying simple stick and rudder. Also would like the option to put on bushwheels and have the ability to introduce new tailwheel pilots to flying on big tires (after they can handle smaller). The one catch is that I would really prefer “faster than cub” speed to be able to cover distance and be able to hit multiple strips. I feel that a student would get to their daily learning threshold pretty quickly if you have to poke around for 40 minutes between strips. I would love if this community had some insight to share because I know there are some long time instructors here.

PS. I currently had a J3, C90, 24 gal in wing tanks, elec starter, that I would sell to make this happen. It doesn’t have any radios and the useful load is very low (around 300-350 I believe). For legality reason while conducting instruction, it seems like this plane just doesn’t quite have what it takes. Plus, I’d have to spend $10k installing radios/adsb therefore depleting useful load even more…

I was thinking an old Husky, but they’re pretty expensive. Maybe a Scout, or PA12? Love to hear your thoughts.

Did my first solo in a champ, phenomenal aircraft, later trained guys up from zero in citabrias

So for tailwheel greenhorns understand it’s all marketing and flash right?

Even with 80 inch tires and a 1100hp turbine they probably won’t land within 1,000’

I fully dig the back county thing as the value of sky wagons and the like has shown there is a good market for, but I’d find the cheapest big looking tires (maybe 8.5s or something) that still give the vibe, get a 7EC, make a very swanky website and social media and just ride that

The idea of burning ABWs for the price of a tailwheel endorsement seems deep in red ink, and real world it’s mental masterbation for the student

Give good instruction and have a plane that looks cool enough for the kid to do some Snapchats, anything else is just burning money

Yeah I hear you. 8.50 Aero Classic are great tires as well. A Scout is probably the right bird and easier for insurance. Would be substantially cheaper to buy and insure than an old husky. Dollar saved is a dollar earned…

I’m not planning on taking anyone for legit off airport, but in lots of places there is no outlet to get a taste big tires or even just non pavement strips. It would be fun to be the catalyst for that. Maybe put the big tires on for grass at least… because we all know BW boost the fun factor.

i am looking for something similar. But the price of engine overhauls is getting silly and parts for things like A65 is getting difficult. I dont like the idea of 70 year old wings with wooden spars either.

Does anyone have any suggestions of some thing Rotax powered that is Cessna strong. I was thinking Escapade but I'm not sure that's Cessna strong.

Bathman wrote:i am looking for something similar. But the price of engine overhauls is getting silly and parts for things like A65 is getting difficult. I dont like the idea of 70 year old wings with wooden spars either.
.

Plenty of A65 parts out there, and there’s nothing wrong with wood spars either. Most 70+ YO aircraft have had their wood spars replaced at some point, look at all of the Wacos 80-90 YO still bombing around.

To answer the OP, a nice Citabria or Decathlon would fill that niche well.

My vote; Scout or later model flapped Citabria, best bang for your buck in my opinion. If for marketing reason your feel compelled to pimp it out that's cool but no need to break the bank doing so.

Any of the Citabria’s. I would not pick the Scout unless I came across one at a great price. The Scout is awesome but it will be more costly to buy, insure and operate than a Citabria. The Citabria 7GCBC (150/160hp flaps) is a great choice but for tailwheel training the 7GCAA (150/160hp no flaps) is a great choice also. As far as tires go, the 26” Good years are a great tire if you want something larger than the 8:50 and they wear like iron. Hard to beat a Citabria for comfort, speed and ease of flying. That being said, the spring gear takes a little more skill in the wheel landings but it’s not bad by any means and will prepare a student for future Cessna 170,180, 185 flying.

Kurt

I like the idea of a 7GCBC or even a big engined Champ (which are getting harder to find). Only thing is,similar to your J-3, check the useful load. The Champ that I had (sold) had a decent UL and at the time I looked at a local 7GCBC that was for sale and it had less UL than the Champ!

ington6 wrote:

PS. I currently had a J3, C90, 24 gal in wing tanks, elec starter, that I would sell to make this happen. It doesn’t have any radios and the useful load is very low (around 300-350 I believe). For legality reason while conducting instruction, it seems like this plane just doesn’t quite have what it takes. Plus, I’d have to spend $10k installing radios/adsb therefore depleting useful load even more…

Does your operating location require radios and ADSB? No need if not. I have been instructing floats and tailwheel since 1985 and my all-time favorite for tailwheel instruction is the J-3. Yes, weight can be an issue with gravitationally challenged students. My solution to overcome this is the PA-18. Been using my '54 A model Cub for tailwheel, ski and float instruction for over 20 years now and with 2K up gross and O-360 up front, weight hauling, and performance is no longer a concern. I use 8.00's for pavement and swap to 31 ABW's for those requesting an intro to off airport operations. Have a fair amount of time instructing in 7GCBC, not a fan for weight issues, however, I am a fan of the 8GCBC Scout. Personally, I (as well as students) like flying with the door open when conditions warrant (almost always when on floats), thus the Cub is most suitable for my requirements.

TR

Hands down, the Stinson 108-3. Dual brakes, side by side seating for explaining sight-picture, immediate recognition of what your student does right/wrong and good payload. Big plus, landing gear is very forgiving with almost no spring back into the air after a hard landing.

Insurance won't kill you either.

48Stinson1083 wrote:Hands down, the Stinson 108-3. Dual brakes, side by side seating for explaining sight-picture, immediate recognition of what your student does right/wrong and good payload. Big plus, landing gear is very forgiving with almost no spring back into the air after a hard landing.

Insurance won't kill you either.

Too big and too much mass

You can let a student get way more in the weeds with a citabria and pull it back than you can with a 108

Another plus is you can also do spin training, which is getting harder and harder to find


Lots of places offering tailwheel and spin could keep you as busy as you want

Rainbow Ron in Moses Lake has a good lookin' Scout for sale, reasonable price.

I like my GCBC for cost to own and operate. 8:50 tires standard, 26" ABW for the adventures. No ADSB, not required in Canada until 2028, and I can drive around the sprinkling of Class C in the US to get where I'm going.

I did move the airspeed and altimeter to the far left and right on the panel so I can see them from the back. Student in front can do it all with the G5 in the middle.

ington6 wrote:I’m playing with the idea of getting a plane to do tailwheel endorsements. I’d prefer it to be tandem and 2 place because I love flying simple stick and rudder. Also would like the option to put on bushwheels and have the ability to introduce new tailwheel pilots to flying on big tires (after they can handle smaller). The one catch is that I would really prefer “faster than cub” speed to be able to cover distance and be able to hit multiple strips. I feel that a student would get to their daily learning threshold pretty quickly if you have to poke around for 40 minutes between strips. I would love if this community had some insight to share because I know there are some long time instructors here.

PS. I currently had a J3, C90, 24 gal in wing tanks, elec starter, that I would sell to make this happen. It doesn’t have any radios and the useful load is very low (around 300-350 I believe). For legality reason while conducting instruction, it seems like this plane just doesn’t quite have what it takes. Plus, I’d have to spend $10k installing radios/adsb therefore depleting useful load even more…

I was thinking an old Husky, but they’re pretty expensive. Maybe a Scout, or PA12? Love to hear your thoughts.

i am getting my ppl in my 180 IO520 on 29s am i doing this right

I highly recommend you take those 29’s off and put 8:00 or 8:50’s on for the training phase. Save the 29’s for when you really need them. The smaller tires are more forgiving and cheaper. Other than that, I see no reason why you can’t do your PPL training in the 180 if you have a competent instructor and if you take it very seriously.


Kurt

clappedout180 wrote:i am getting my ppl in my 180 IO520 on 29s am i doing this right

Potentially a regional problem but... have you found a DPE who is a tailwheel pilot?

ington6 wrote:Also would like the option to put on bushwheels and have the ability to introduce new tailwheel pilots to flying on big tires (after they can handle smaller).

I think there are a significant number of "Endorsement Tourists" who want to have a cool experience and put it in their logbook but have no intention of owning a tailwheel aircraft. Spending a couple days poking around at 90 mph to grass strips in a fat tire machine might be all they want vs being a proficient tailwheel pilot.

The first question you need to ask with ANY of these aircraft is: "What is the actual legal useful load?". Then, consider YOUR weight, the weight of at LEAST two hours of fuel, plus required reserve, plus weight of survival gear. What's left after you subtract all that from the legal useful load? If that isn't at least 240 or so, that's not the plane you want.

Why is this important? As a CFI, you will be considered Pilot in Command by the FAA and NTSB. Now, your "student" may also be considered PIC, but the agencies are going to hold the CFI "responsible for anything that happens" type of PIC. That means YOUR certificates (Pilot and CFI) are going to be at risk every time you fire that plane up with a student. Don't believe it? Ask me how I got a 709 ride from a "friendly" FSDO.

So, based on my experience: 7GCBC Citabrias are almost universally light on useful load. In fact, I just turned down a Flight Review request in one.....gave the owner my weight, told him to do the math and call me back. He didn't. I'm guessing he's at least 230.

Super Cub: I sold my Super Cub because I wanted to do float ratings in it, and this was before the 2000 pound gross weight mod was available. I bought a Cessna 170. Today, I'd probably keep the Cub and install the 2000 pound kit. That said, if you want to teach spins, forget the Super Cub....very few can meet the requirements of the TC for weight and balance.....seriously, look at the TC. And the 2000 pound kit doesn't change that TC requirement for spins.

7GC Champ: As Keith noted above, the earlier Champs actually have better useful loads than most Citabrias. They also have MUCH friendlier landing gear. They are GREAT spinners as well. I used one for a number of students for spin training, and some T/W training. Most of these folks were fairly lightweight types, however.

Add big tires to any of the above, and you've shot yourself in the foot, useful load wise.

Cessna 170: A great trainer, great useful load for this purpose. Works fine on floats, wheels and skis. Lately, however, they are expensive.

Aeronca Sedan: If you can find one. Great useful load, really good performance, even without flaps. Very under appreciated airplane. There is a spar AD, but I'm pretty sure there's a fix for that.

Scout: Pretty expensive, but they are fairly fast, and have a pretty good useful load. Stay away from the ones with 70 gallon tanks....too easy to carry too much gas. Spring gear can be a challenge. Find an older one with wood wing, and it could work. I wouldn't be afraid of wood wings, just make sure they're inspected properly. I'm not sure they're approved for spins, if you care. TCDS will tell you.

Most other two place trainers simply don't have enough useful load to serve in this role, unless all occupants are very small.

So, if you are a 90 pounder, most of those could work......

Again, bear in mind that, as CFI in a dual role, it's your certificate that's potentially on the line. A flat tire, a seized brake, etc can ruin your day, and you're the one who'll take the fall.

MTV

mtv wrote:The first question you need to ask with ANY of these aircraft is: "What is the actual legal useful load?". Then, consider YOUR weight, the weight of at LEAST two hours of fuel, plus required reserve, plus weight of survival gear. What's left after you subtract all that from the legal useful load? If that isn't at least 240 or so, that's not the plane you want.

Why is this important? As a CFI, you will be considered Pilot in Command by the FAA and NTSB. Now, your "student" may also be considered PIC, but the agencies are going to hold the CFI "responsible for anything that happens" type of PIC. That means YOUR certificates (Pilot and CFI) are going to be at risk every time you fire that plane up with a student. Don't believe it? Ask me how I got a 709 ride from a "friendly" FSDO.

So, based on my experience: 7GCBC Citabrias are almost universally light on useful load. In fact, I just turned down a Flight Review request in one.....gave the owner my weight, told him to do the math and call me back. He didn't. I'm guessing he's at least 230.

Super Cub: I sold my Super Cub because I wanted to do float ratings in it, and this was before the 2000 pound gross weight mod was available. I bought a Cessna 170. Today, I'd probably keep the Cub and install the 2000 pound kit. That said, if you want to teach spins, forget the Super Cub....very few can meet the requirements of the TC for weight and balance.....seriously, look at the TC. And the 2000 pound kit doesn't change that TC requirement for spins.

7GC Champ: As Keith noted above, the earlier Champs actually have better useful loads than most Citabrias. They also have MUCH friendlier landing gear. They are GREAT spinners as well. I used one for a number of students for spin training, and some T/W training. Most of these folks were fairly lightweight types, however.

Add big tires to any of the above, and you've shot yourself in the foot, useful load wise.

Cessna 170: A great trainer, great useful load for this purpose. Works fine on floats, wheels and skis. Lately, however, they are expensive.

Aeronca Sedan: If you can find one. Great useful load, really good performance, even without flaps. Very under appreciated airplane. There is a spar AD, but I'm pretty sure there's a fix for that.

Scout: Pretty expensive, but they are fairly fast, and have a pretty good useful load. Stay away from the ones with 70 gallon tanks....too easy to carry too much gas. Spring gear can be a challenge. Find an older one with wood wing, and it could work. I wouldn't be afraid of wood wings, just make sure they're inspected properly. I'm not sure they're approved for spins, if you care. TCDS will tell you.

Most other two place trainers simply don't have enough useful load to serve in this role, unless all occupants are very small.

So, if you are a 90 pounder, most of those could work......

Again, bear in mind that, as CFI in a dual role, it's your certificate that's potentially on the line. A flat tire, a seized brake, etc can ruin your day, and you're the one who'll take the fall.

MTV

Anyone with a CFI on their ticket knows if anything happens it’s their ass

Flew as a full time CFI in a citabria fleet with a bunch of farm boy students, the planes worked great in that role

You also dont even NEED full fuel for most training flights, and don’t need 90lbs of survival junk for most training flights

Online W&B calculator

http://tsaviation.com/wandb/wab7GCAA.html

93Kilo,

I totally agree on most of that.....except I've seen a LOT of CFIs doing instruction in airplanes that were clearly in excess of legal gross weight.....just a reminder of potential consequences.

I've seen 7GCBCs with sufficient legal useful load to make it work, again, depending on the participants' weights.

Please note I didn't suggest anything about full fuel....but if you're going to do much instruction, you need at least a couple hours of fuel, and don't forget reserve.

I got a gent float rated in his Luscombe 8E once.....a gorgeous little airplane, but useful load on floats? Not much. We did MAXIMUM one hour flights, and, since he owned the plane and had some 500 hours in it on wheels, I put him in charge of adequate fuel.

At the conclusion of one flight, we landed in the Fairbanks float pond, and promptly ran out of gas. My instruction to the owner: "You paddle, I'll talk to the tower.". Duh!

MTV

mtv wrote:93Kilo,

I totally agree on most of that.....except I've seen a LOT of CFIs doing instruction in airplanes that were clearly in excess of legal gross weight.....just a reminder of potential consequences.

I've seen 7GCBCs with sufficient legal useful load to make it work, again, depending on the participants' weights.

Please note I didn't suggest anything about full fuel....but if you're going to do much instruction, you need at least a couple hours of fuel, and don't forget reserve.

I got a gent float rated in his Luscombe 8E once.....a gorgeous little airplane, but useful load on floats? Not much. We did MAXIMUM one hour flights, and, since he owned the plane and had some 500 hours in it on wheels, I put him in charge of adequate fuel.

At the conclusion of one flight, we landed in the Fairbanks float pond, and promptly ran out of gas. My instruction to the owner: "You paddle, I'll talk to the tower.". Duh!

MTV

I can dig it